Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-15 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2016 MINUTES Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chairman Wayne Mallar Julie Williams Charles Boothby Dora McCarthy Pete Parizo Chuck LeBlanc, Alternate Member City Staff Present: David Gould, Planning Officer John Theriault, City Engineer Peter Witham, Staff Planner Chairman Kenney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He indicated the absence of Board Member Hicks and that Alternate Member LeBlanc was present to vote. CONSENT AGENDA As no wished to remove the item on the Consent Agenda Chairman Kenney asked for a motion. Member Boothby moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Member McCarthy seconded and the Board voted unanimously to approve the Consent Agenda. The item that was approved is as follows: Item No. 1: Final Subdivision Plan Revision of the Bangor Mall subdivision at 605 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping & Personal Service District – Chick-fil-A, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Zone Change & Land Development Code Map Amendment from Industry and Service District (I&S) to Urban Industry District (UID) for portions of an existing parcel and two other parcels of land on Odlin Road containing approximately 7.9 acres in total (Tax Map R10 Parcel No. 2, 2 2A and 3), Lane Construction, Corporation, applicant. C.O. #17-010. Chairman Kenney asked the applicant for an overview of the request. Mr. Gene Weldon, Senior Environmental Manager of Lane Construction, introduced Kelly Cyr, Environmental Specialist, and Rodney Lane, District Manager, also of Lane Construction, and attorney Ed Bearor. He indicated their other application later on the Agenda and that work influenced their decision to apply for this zone change request to have the zoning boundaries line up with Lane’s property boundaries. The request involves three parcels. The largest lot contains the quarry in UID with two areas in I&S. The smaller two lots are completely in I&S. The total acreage is approximately 7.9 acres. Mr. Kenney opened the Public Hearing and asked for proponents and opponents. Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planner Gould noted that some Board members may recall changes to the Zoning Ordinance a few years before when the City removed quarry use from the Rural Residence & Agriculture District and permitted them only in the Urban Industry District. This particular quarry had been operating for many years as a nonconforming use in UID, but now it is conforming and the applicant would like to move its berm that screens the quarry from Odlin Road. In order to do that the applicant is requesting to align the zone boundary along its property boundary. Mr. Gould indicated he saw no issue with changing the zone on small areas to match the zoning on the larger area of a parcel, but had reservations with rezoning whole lots as the UID is much less restrictive than I&S and it could encourage all other Odlin Road properties to change their zone. He explained some of the particular differences. Mr. Kenney asked for questions for Board members. He asked how far the public utilities extend on Odlin Road. Mr. Gould indicated that they extend into Hermon. Mr. Mallar asked if they could move the berm if the zone is not changed. Mr. Gould did not think it would affect the grading, and they have access roads going through I&S now. He said the applicant would like to have their property all in one zone. Mr. Mallar said that if it does not affect the current quarry operation and they are allowed to move the berm and have access roads in the more restrictive zone then he did not see that the zone needed to be changed. Mr. Weldon responded that the primary reason for the rezoning is that there are portions of the existing quarry that are in I&S. He reviewed the locations on the plans with Mr. Mallar. 3 Mr. Mallar said his concern is expansion of the quarry. Mr. Weldon answered that there would be limitation of distances from property lines. They discussed the distances and Mr. Bearor added the particulars. Another owners’ property in the middle of Lane’s would require setbacks for any quarry expansion. Mr. Kenny asked if there were any more questions from Board members. Mr. Boothby moved to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zone Change. Mr. Parizo seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed map amendment to the site from I&S to UID as contained in C.O. #17-010. Item No. 3: Conditional Use & Site Development Plan to establish a mixed residential & commercial use at 732 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District, Bangor Home Decorating Center, applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, P.E. of Kiser and Kiser indicated that he and Peggy Brown were present to represent the applicant. He explained that the building was originally a 7-11 convenience store. The ground floor is occupied by a paint store and a tobacco store, and the second floor in the rear has been occupied as office uses. The request is to turn one of the offices into an apartment of 500 square feet. He indicated that the site has adequate parking, but acknowledged that the site had not been built as last approved. He asked the Board’s indulgence in accepting some differences. He noted that the dwelling use requires useable open space and the required area of pavement will be removed and seeded over. He noted other comments from Staff that would be changed for a final approved plan. Chairman Kenney opened the Public Hearing and asked for proponents and opponents. Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planner Gould said that the addition of a dwelling unit seems simple, but the Ordinance requires it be a Conditional Use which has additional standards, some applicable to all Conditional Uses and some particular to the use in the Zoning District. He reviewed those standards with the Board. The last recorded plan is from 1983 under the previous Zoning Ordinance, which was before the current Land Development Code of 1991, which has also seen changes in the past 25 years. He discussed the changed standards and in particular the planting requirements of the previous and current Codes, and especially as related to the proposed Conditional Use. He also noted the very wide double curb cut on Broadway that the City Engineer would address. City Engineer Theriault related that next year there is a scheduled project to mill and overlay Broadway in the vicinity and along with that a plan to reduce and consolidate driveways as recommended in the Broadway Corridor Study from last year. He is fine that the current plan notes that the applicant is willing to have the Broadway driveways reconfigured next year, rather than to have it reconfigured now along with 4 modifications next year too. Also he would prefer not to have the applicant spend funds on the driveway now and then next year work on driveways next year with no other owners spending their funds. Mr. Kenney asked if there were any questions from Board members. Mr. Gould said Staff has two issues relative to setbacks and buffer yards and whether there is room enough to accommodate a buffer yard along the sides. He noted there did seem to be enough asphalt to allow the 10-foot setback without compromising maneuvering space. Mr. Kenney asked about the street frontage buffers. Mr. Kiser said there would be room along the Husson Avenue frontage, but likely not as much along the Broadway frontage even when the driveway openings are reduced next year. Mr. Theriault added he would prefer the curb cut closest to Broadway be closed. There was more discussion about the buffers and setbacks, parking space locations, islands, and discussion about returning the site to the conditions of the previous approved plan. There was also discussion about plans being approved and applicants not abiding by them. Mr. Kenny asked if he understood correctly that this use required buffers along the sides and what remedy is there for this plan. Mr. Gould answered that is correct, that there is room to put in required buffer, and that a condition might be added to an approval. He indicated that the Board needed to encourage the applicant to comply with the Ordinance in order for it to be approved. Mr. Kiser asked if he understood that there would have to be a buffer on the south side to comply. If so there is room for plantings, but he was not certain there would be the required distance for a buffer. He said there is room on the west side to meet the required parking setback and to provide buffer plantings. Along Husson Avenue the plan indicates required buffer plantings, but there is not room for the distance. Ms. Williams asked for clarification of what conditions might be amenable for the Board to approve the plan. Ms. Williams moved approval of the Site Development Plan and Conditional Use for a mixed commercial and residential use with the conditions that: 1) Additional floor area for the stair tower be added to the plan, 2) Plants and/or boulders required per “B” Buffer standards be added in the unpaved strips along the west and south property lines, and 3) Parking spaces on the west side be set back 10 feet from the property line. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-1 for approval with Mr. Mallar not in favor. Item No. 4: Site Development Plan to relocate their maintenance facilities, parking and loading areas in the southeast corner 5 of the Husson campus in a Government and Institutional Service District (G&ISD) at1 College Circle, Husson University, applicant. Ms. Jodi O’Neil P.E. of James Sewall Company indicated that she and Gary Gerow of Husson University were present for review of the proposal. She described the proposed site, sequence of construction, and details of the site. The plan is to build the new facility, occupy it, and then demolish the old facility. Mr. Gould presented Staff’s review of the project. He indicated that neighbors at the end of Grandview Avenue have long taken an interest in what Husson does in that area. The plans do provide required buffers with plantings and a fence, but there are neighbors present who may have comments and questions if the Board is amenable to hear them. He noted that most of the details are in order, but there was a detail of the Boucher soccer field included with this application, that they have since provided more details and it appears in order now for approval. Mr. Kenney asked if any attendees in the audience who would like to speak about the project. Mr. Luke Leavitt from 360 Grandview Avenue approached the podium. His house is the last on the right and closest to the proposed site. His family purchased the property a year ago because it is a quiet dead end street and they have been enjoying the view. Now they have concerns about the proposed activity at the site especially in the middle of the night during snowplowing season. There’s a sand shed, and he can anticipate headlights, trucks back and forth at night, service bays, and space for tractor trailer trucks. They believe it would have a significant impact on their lives there and have already been considering where they might look for a new house depending on how this goes. Understanding Husson’s needs he would prefer that they build in their current location which is farther away from where they propose, although they are currently using it. Husson had cut trees in anticipation of the project and the noise from the soccer field seems to be more audible. They certainly appreciate the proposed trees and fence, but it will not stop noise of trucks and their backing up beepers. He asked if the future potential development could be pointed out. He also related discussion he had heard about an access to Husson through Grandview and that would totally change the character of that little neighborhood. Ms. O’Neil pointed out locations on the map to Mr. and Mrs. Leavitt. Mr. Leavitt asked about the size of the proposed trees. Ms. O’Neil asked Mr. Gould the required sizes of buffer plantings. They discussed the height difference between Husson’s site nd and Mr. Leavitt’s 2 floor windows. They also discussed lighting at the site and that they are required to be directed downward. Mr. Boothby asked Mr. Kenney if the speaker could include the Board in the conversation. The group apologized and turned to face the Board. 6 Mr. Kenney asked if there were any questions from the Board. He asked if Mr. Theriault could discuss stormwater. Ms. O’Neil approached the podium and explained the stormwater and indicated that they proposed redirecting that within the Arctic Brook Impaired Watershed away from it and into the adjoining non-impaired watershed. Mr. Kenney asked if there were any further questions and if anyone was ready to make a motion. Ms. McCarthy moved approval of the Site Development Plan. Ms. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Mallar asked if the additional information had been received. The Board voted 7-0 for approval. Item No. 5: Site Development Plan to demolish an existing house and replace it with an industrial storage building in an Urban Industry District (UID) at 811 Main Street, Cold Brook Energy, applicant. Ms. Aimee Young, EIT of Plymouth Engineering, indicated that she was representing the applicant. She described the site with the existing old house, last occupied in 1995. The proposal is to demolish the house and construct the new building for storage of the boats and loaders that are across the road at the applicant’s main site. There will be no water and sewer service, but only electricity for lights at the site. The driveway will be widened for vehicle access and the impervious area will be slightly enlarged. The shallow lot required that a variance from the Code Enforcement office be issued for the building setback, which it was. Mr. Kenney asked about the maneuverability of the site as it will have no turnaround, and that if vehicles will have to back into it from Main Street. Ms. Young indicated that they believed the driveway was wide enough to maneuver without backing in from Main Street as they would not be using large trucks. Mr. Kenney asked about the stormwater, how the drip strip would work, and if there would be a raised foundation into the hillside in the back of the building. Ms. Young indicated that she believed Scott Braley, P.E. with Plymouth Engineering conversed with City Engineer Theriault about it. Mr. Theriault indicated that he was satisfied with the proposal. Mr. Kenney asked if there were any other questions, and then if the Board was ready for a motion. Ms. Williams moved approval of the Site Development Plan. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion. The Board voted 7-0 for approval. 7 Item No. 6: Site Development Plan to move the existing berm at the Odlin Road quarry closer to Odlin Road at 915 Odlin Road – Lane Construction Corporation, applicant. Mr. Gene Weldon, from Lane Construction indicated that Ms. Sarah Nicholson from Woodward and Curran was present to answer specific questions on the proposed plan. He described the proposal is to move the screening berm closer to the property boundaries in order to improve the existing internal access drive into the quarry. Mr. Gould presented the Staff report. He described the existing berm that screens the quarry. The applicant in its discussions with the City said that as the quarry had deepened, the access into it has been squeezed and needed to be moved closer to Odlin Road. Mr. Kenney asked what the permitting requirement is and why moving the berm required going before the Board. Mr. Gould explained the quarry has operated for years at that site and was a nonconforming use until recently. Moving that amount of earth required a grade and fill permit. Any expansion of the quarry will eventually return to the Board. Mr. Boothby moved approval of the Site Development Plan. Mr. LeBlanc seconded the motion. The Board voted 7-0 unanimously for approval. Item No. 7: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Ms. Williams moved approval of the October 18 Meeting Minutes and Mr. Boothby seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve them. Ms. Williams moved approval of the October 4 Meeting Minutes as amended and Ms. McCarthy seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve them. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.